Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

WON HOF 2022


NintendoLogic

Recommended Posts

 

14 minutes ago, El-P said:

The issue with that is that there is an actual double standards *in life* for women. You can't call for equality of treatments for the HOF when there's no equality of treatment IRL.

But then you are enforcing the double standard, I'm not saying women should have a higher standard than men, which is the issue in the workplace for women and minorities.

Think people are getting confused of what the double standard is, it would be that Becky has to draw more than Austin to be eligible. I'm saying, she shouldn't get special treatment and a lower bar because she is a woman. 

Just Equal rights for all lol  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 minutes ago, ragemaster said:

But then you are enforcing the double standard

Nope. You compared her with Seth. But she isn't on the same standards as Seth or any other big male stars, no matter how you slice it. So, the fact she drew as much despite the equality issues should be taken in account when judging her case. It's not unfair to her male counterparts, it's just taking in account the fact women just aren't playing within the same rulebook. 

18 minutes ago, ragemaster said:

Just Equal rights for all lol  

That's the neverending debate between "equality" and "fairness". Treating people like they have equal rights in a world actually filled with systemic inequalities is just playing along (and even validating to a degree) said inequalities (same thing goes with so-called "meritocracy"). The goal for sure from everybody should be equal rights for everyone. But it just isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, El-P said:

Nope. You compared her with Seth. But she isn't on the same standards as Seth or any other big male stars, no matter how you slice it. So, the fact she drew as much despite the equality issues should be taken in account when judging her case. It's not unfair to her male counterparts, it's just taking in account the fact women just aren't playing within the same rulebook. 

Ok can you enlighten me on why she not on the same standard as Seth or other male stars. In farness I've not watched WWE with regularity in a long time. But the booking for male and female stars has been pretty universally bad.

I Know the male stars was getting more tv time, but when Becky got over how was her segments timewise compared to the males, if she was a big draw for 14 months, I'm guessing she was moved up the card and giving more time as she was a draw? 

The stuff this year with Sami and the Bloodline has been the first classic stuff in a long time. So, I'm now taking more of an interest in the product again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ragemaster said:

Ok can you enlighten me on why she not on the same standard as Seth or other male stars.

Because she's a woman. Simple as that. :lol: And yeah, they had the women headline Mania that year, but that was because of Ronda Rousey's status, not Becky's (which may or may not play against Becky's case too). And yeah, they had women headline Mania the next year, but it was also a two date Mania (and really, maybe that'll play in favor of Sasha Banks whenener it's her turn). Last year though, nope. So yes, things are evolving in the right directions, but we're still far off when we'll be able to really talk about equality. Which makes sense, it will take some time.

And I mean, if we're strictly talking about booking, they had to throw Charlotte in there because Charlotte be like. 

For the details of booking, you'd have to ask for someone who actually was watching closely the TV then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ragemaster said:

But unless we have a hall of fame for woman, [b]they should be judged as the same as men[/b], if Seth Rollins had her numbers but nothing else, would you be calling for him to go into the hall of fame for just a year's wrestling career.

If the playing field was anywhere close to equal, I'd agree, but it isn't so it's really not fair to judge her or any woman by the men's standard they haven't been allowed to reach until recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

3 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

Mildred Burke and the Crush Gals weren't just strong draws. They were also considered elite workers, and I don't know of anyone who considers Lynch on that level. To my mind, if drawing power is the primary basis for someone's candidacy, their case should be absolutely bulletproof to the point where it would be ridiculous to consider not voting for them. I don't think 14 months as a ratings mover quite qualifies, especially when someone like Mistico is still on the outside looking in.

Mildred Burke was not an elite worker. At no point in her era was anyone comparing her to Thesz, Rogers, Gagne, O'Connor, McShain, Red Berry, or any other true elite. Nobody was saying she was top-10 at any point. She was good, yes, but that's it. Exactly the same would apply to Byers. The difference between the two on both peak drawing power & in-ring ability was minimal - even Jeff Leen, the author of the Burke book, admits to that. 

Lynch's case is based primarily on historical significance - not drawing power. The latter simply leads to the former. If you were to totally ignore the fact that she's a woman, then her case becomes considerably weaker. But why am I suddenly deciding to strip away all historical context just for Lynch? Did we do that for Burke? Jackie Sato? Dump Matsumoto? How about Bearcat Wright? Are we doing that for JYD? Are we doing that for Byers? The answer is no across the board. 

Based on precedent, factually, the decision to knock out Lynch isn't justifiable. It just isn't. If that decision is made then there is no getting round it: the bar as been dramatically raised. Terrible look as Sek69 pointed out, and also leads to me being far more stringent with my picks. I'd rather avoid both outcomes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, sek69 said:

If the playing field was anywhere close to equal, I'd agree, but it isn't so it's really not fair to judge her or any woman by the men's standard they haven't been allowed to reach until recently.

But this applies to the men as well as well as the women, only a few men have been allowed to reach the upper echelon of the WWE.  Based on height, body's or until this year Vince whims, how many WWE wrestlers could have had Hall of fame careers.

 She was a like a Bryan Danielson rise in the WWE, her nose got broken and the fans got behind her in a big way. But without his career to back up her case for hall of fan induction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an apples to apples comparison. Yes, there's been guys who've been held back, but again it's assuming the women are on equal footing. For the most part, women's level of push came down to their willingness to get fake boobs and (allegedly) fool around with Vince. Getting to the level of having your career derailed because Vince didn't understand the appeal would have been a step up. 

16 minutes ago, ragemaster said:

She was a like a Bryan Danielson rise in the WWE, her nose got broken and the fans got behind her in a big way. But without his career to back up her case for hall of fan induction. 

Let's not forget even after that they still tried to turn her heel only for the crowd to reject that shit like Mutumbo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sek69 said:

For the most part, women's level of push came down to their willingness to get fake boobs and (allegedly) fool around with Vince. 

Not saying it's true, but the wrestlers used to joke when someone got a push, they must have been blowing Pat Patterson.

The fake Boobs is no different than guys having to use steroids in the pass, the fooling around with Vince is undefendable and hopefully we don't hear more stories like this in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Strummer said:

Think Sek is talking about the heel turn in late 2018. Not the one in 2021.

Yep. It's been kind of forgotten due to how popular she got that in the immediate aftermath they were still trying to keep her as the heel she was prior to getting her face smashed and not going with what was catching fire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ethantyler said:

  

Mildred Burke was not an elite worker. At no point in her era was anyone comparing her to Thesz, Rogers, Gagne, O'Connor, McShain, Red Berry, or any other true elite. Nobody was saying she was top-10 at any point. She was good, yes, but that's it. Exactly the same would apply to Byers. The difference between the two on both peak drawing power & in-ring ability was minimal - even Jeff Leen, the author of the Burke book, admits to that. 

How do we know that Mildred Burke wasn't an elite worker? She looks fantastic in the footage we have of her. Miles better than Byers, fwiw. What does it matter if people at the time didn't rate her as highly as Thesz & Co.? And how do we know this for a fact? You've already explained how women's wrestling was viewed in the 50s, so it hardly comes as a surprise that no-one from that era would rate her as highly as the men. We've reevaluated so many wrestlers over the years -- some of whom were overlooked in the 80s and 90s let alone the 50s -- that all that should matter at this stage is whether she passes the eyesight test. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, ohtani's jacket said:

How do we know that Mildred Burke wasn't an elite worker? She looks fantastic in the footage we have of her. Miles better than Byers, fwiw. What does it matter if people at the time didn't rate her as highly as Thesz & Co.? And how do we know this for a fact? You've already explained how women's wrestling was viewed in the 50s, so it hardly comes as a surprise that no-one from that era would rate her as highly as the men. We've reevaluated so many wrestlers over the years -- some of whom were overlooked in the 80s and 90s let alone the 50s -- that all that should matter at this stage is whether she passes the eyesight test. 

This is a disappointing response. We don't have a single full Burke match available for view and yet you feel confident enough based off highlights to claim she's "miles" better than Byers. This retrospective 2022 eyesight test of 1940s/50s workers is apparently all the evidence we need and more valuable than any opinion of the time. I can't, and won't, take this position seriously. We're knee deep into "this is how I feel and that's the end of it" territory. No fighting that. On any topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're saying there's no anecdotal evidence that Burke was a great worker. I'm saying there isn't an video proof that she wasn't. Burke, along with other female wrestlers from the Golden Age, had far more technical skill than people might imagine. Byers has never stood out to me in the footage I've seen, but there's neither here nor there.

We're not going to agree on this, but I feel modern reappraisal of wrestlers and matches is far more important than how they were viewed at the time. If we were suddenly to discover a hoard of Burke matches, a contemporary critique of those matches would hold far more weight to me than accounts of how Burke was viewed in the past. And if ten years later, a new generation of fans presented opposing views on the matches, that would still hold more weight with me than how the matches were received in the 40s and 50s. Perhaps historians wouldn't agree with this line of thinking, but if they're going to draw conclusions about a wrestler's legacy and impact beyond how audiences thought about them at the time, then we can do the same with their work. And yes, there are plenty of reasons why this mentality can be unfair towards older workers and older matches, but it also serves to champion the overlooked and underappreciated workers of the past. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pro-wrestling. I want Mildred Burke, the Myth. Mildred Burke, the Reality, doesn't belong. No need to diminish the dead, not even for a "reality-based" pro-wrasslin' Hall of Fame. Yes you want accuracy if drawing is a criteria, but it's always been a nebulous term and attendance figures are wobbly at best, shonky at worst. She "only" drew 7,000 a) could be out in either direction b) doesn't tell me if it was a full house c) doesn't tell me how many people over the years said they were there.

Just leave ol' Millie alone. She's not hurting anyone, what with being dead and all. Becky's fair game, given that we have all the evidence available to us in real time. 

If Becky's sashaying down streets paved with gold, it's because the Burkes and Byerses broke their backs building those roads. Numbers and star-ratings be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2022 at 10:47 AM, ethantyler said:

Mildred Burke was not an elite worker. At no point in her era was anyone comparing her to Thesz, Rogers, Gagne, O'Connor, McShain, Red Berry, or any other true elite. Nobody was saying she was top-10 at any point. She was good, yes, but that's it. Exactly the same would apply to Byers. The difference between the two on both peak drawing power & in-ring ability was minimal - even Jeff Leen, the author of the Burke book, admits to that. 

Burke was unquestionably in the elite among the women. The fact that she was able to get over as a serious wrestler when women's wrestling was mostly a T&A sideshow says it all. If she wasn't held in the same regard as her male peers, I suspect that can largely be attributed to chauvinism. Look at how joshi carried the stigma well into the 80s of being something only teenage girls would be into even when the AJW women were on the cutting edge of workrate. From what little footage we have of Burke, she looks like the real deal.

Quote

Lynch's case is based primarily on historical significance - not drawing power. The latter simply leads to the former. If you were to totally ignore the fact that she's a woman, then her case becomes considerably weaker. But why am I suddenly deciding to strip away all historical context just for Lynch? Did we do that for Burke? Jackie Sato? Dump Matsumoto? How about Bearcat Wright? Are we doing that for JYD? Are we doing that for Byers? The answer is no across the board. 

Lynch's true historical significance remains to be seen. You can't compare someone still active and in her prime to wrestlers who have been retired/dead for decades. Dave himself has said that longevity is more important than short-term peak unless it's someone like Sayama who completely changed the game. It's too early determine if Lynch is a game-changer or a flash in the pan. Also, she was mainly a beneficiary of the trail blazed by Ronda Rousey rather than a catalyst of change on her own. Remove Becky from the equation and women still main event WWE PPVs. There's no way that happens without Ronda, at least not anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

Burke was unquestionably in the elite among the women. The fact that she was able to get over as a serious wrestler when women's wrestling was mostly a T&A sideshow says it all. If she wasn't held in the same regard as her male peers, I suspect that can largely be attributed to chauvinism. Look at how joshi carried the stigma well into the 80s of being something only teenage girls would be into even when the AJW women were on the cutting edge of workrate. From what little footage we have of Burke, she looks like the real deal.

Lynch's true historical significance remains to be seen. You can't compare someone still active and in her prime to wrestlers who have been retired/dead for decades. Dave himself has said that longevity is more important than short-term peak unless it's someone like Sayama who completely changed the game. It's too early determine if Lynch is a game-changer or a flash in the pan. Also, she was mainly a beneficiary of the trail blazed by Ronda Rousey rather than a catalyst of change on her own. Remove Becky from the equation and women still main event WWE PPVs. There's no way that happens without Ronda, at least not anytime soon.

Never said Burke wasn't one of the elite women. It's her and Byers. Who's better was subjective. Penny Banner strongly maintained that it was Byers, Mae Young said Burke, and on & on it goes. To take it further and say she was top-10 in that era, just as good as the elite men, etc based on highlights isn't a serious position. It's fine to dismiss the views of people who lived through it if you actually have solid evidence to the contrary. Highlights aren't solid evidence. Dave said something similar today on WOR when it comes to retrospective evaluation of wrestlers based on minimal footage. 

Lynch's legacy - historic sig isn't just about influence - will literally be that she was the first woman ever in North America to eclipse the guys as the top star. There is no "remains to be seen" on that. It's factual regardless of longevity. That's like saying records don't count until you retire. Yes, they do. Dave is voting for Lynch. He clearly believes that the unique historical importance of her case is solid enough, now, to eclipse any longevity concerns. He's right. 

Rousey absolutely opened the door. She's the reason they headlined Mania. She had nothing to do with Lynch getting over, nothing to do with Lynch continuing to be top ratings draw 6+ months after Mania, and nothing to do with women headlining other PPVs like Survivor Series and TLC in 2019. I'm happy to credit her as a catalyst but I won't disrespect Lynch by saying everything post-Mania happens with or without her because Rousey. Not true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was top 10, she wasn't top 10 - we'll never know.

But I know Lynch isn't getting voted in/out based on comparisons to Mildred Burke. Burke isn't her competition, nor are others on the ballot. Lynch is competing against the criteria.

Unless someone's campaigning to remove Mildred from the hall, I don't see the relevance of including her (or the Crush Gals or anyone else) in the Lynch conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ohtani's jacket said:

Nobody said she was top 10 for the era, or just as good as the elite men. You said she was merely good. Based on what? Testament from other wrestlers, or lack-thereof? You haven't explained how you reached that conclusion. 

Nintendo called her an elite worker before clarifying that he meant among the women only. Elite to me means top-10ish among your peers with zero segregation. 

Yes, I did explain how I reached that conclusion - Jeff Leen's book where he spoke to people from that era about Burke. To expand on that, Mae Young had huge respect for her but never claimed equal ability to the top guys. Cora Combs thought she was good, and that's it. The likes of Ethel Brown and Penny Banner thought Byers was better but still didn't give the latter equal status to the top guys either. Notice that I have avoided opinions from men because I can see you dismissing them outright from a mile away.

The best women's wrestler, just as good as the standard guys, etc is the general consensus. Still impressive considering how primitive women's wrestling was, having only become a regular thing in 1934/35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ethantyler said:

Never said Burke wasn't one of the elite women. It's her and Byers. Who's better was subjective. Penny Banner strongly maintained that it was Byers, Mae Young said Burke, and on & on it goes. To take it further and say she was top-10 in that era, just as good as the elite men, etc based on highlights isn't a serious position. It's fine to dismiss the views of people who lived through it if you actually have solid evidence to the contrary. Highlights aren't solid evidence. Dave said something similar today on WOR when it comes to retrospective evaluation of wrestlers based on minimal footage. 

According to the Observer announcing the inaugural HOF class, "her reputation has it that she was legitimately the best of the women wrestlers during the period it was in its heyday in the United States." How she truly stacked up against her peers or the top men of her era can never truly be known, but for the Gordy List question "Was she ever the best worker in her class (sex or weight)? Was she ever one of the top workers in her class?" the answer seems to be clearly yes. My broader point is that comparing Lynch to Burke and the Crush Gals as draws isn't a fair comparison because they were inducted not just on the basis of drawing power but in-ring ability as well.

Quote

Lynch's legacy - historic sig isn't just about influence - will literally be that she was the first woman ever in North America to eclipse the guys as the top star. There is no "remains to be seen" on that. It's factual regardless of longevity. That's like saying records don't count until you retire. Yes, they do. Dave is voting for Lynch. He clearly believes that the unique historical importance of her case is solid enough, now, to eclipse any longevity concerns. He's right. 

The official standard is "positive historical influence on the business," which is not the same as historical significance. Being the first woman with a legitimate claim to being the top star in North America is an incredible accomplishment, but if it doesn't lead to broader changes in the business, it's not historically influential because it didn't influence anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NintendoLogic said:

According to the Observer announcing the inaugural HOF class, "her reputation has it that she was legitimately the best of the women wrestlers during the period it was in its heyday in the United States." How she truly stacked up against her peers or the top men of her era can never truly be known, but for the Gordy List question "Was she ever the best worker in her class (sex or weight)? Was she ever one of the top workers in her class?" the answer seems to be clearly yes. My broader point is that comparing Lynch to Burke and the Crush Gals as draws isn't a fair comparison because they were inducted not just on the basis of drawing power but in-ring ability as well.

The official standard is "positive historical influence on the business," which is not the same as historical significance. Being the first woman with a legitimate claim to being the top star in North America is an incredible accomplishment, but if it doesn't lead to broader changes in the business, it's not historically influential because it didn't influence anything.

Gordy List questions are neither here nor there. Ignore the fact that Burke's a woman and she doesn't get in. Period. Same applies to Byers - who wouldn't even make the ballot - and Lynch. That in & of itself tells you it's all about historic significance. Speaking of which, the official standard from this year's ballot: 

"If you are getting this, you are being asked your opinion on who should be inducted into this year's Hall of Fame class.  The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling, as well as having historical significance in a positive manner.  A candidate should either have something to offer in all three categories, or be someone so outstanding in one or two of those categories that they deserve inclusion."

Significance. Not influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...